According to an article in USAToday, the U.S. Copyright Office as issued
new rights to cellphone owners. Owners will be able to break software
locks in order to use them with competing carriers. The Office
determined that consumers aren't able to enjoy full legal use of their
handsets because of software locks that wireless providers have been
placing to control access to phones' underlying programs.

On Fri, 24 Nov 2006 07:27:50 -0600, putt@webtv.net <putt@webtv.net> wrote:
> According to an article in USAToday, the U.S. Copyright Office as issued
> new rights to cellphone owners. Owners will be able to break software
> locks in order to use them with competing carriers. The Office
> determined that consumers aren't able to enjoy full legal use of their
> handsets because of software locks that wireless providers have been
> placing to control access to phones' underlying programs.
>
> I'm thinking this is a good thing, right?

It seems to me that it's a relativly empty victory. While you may
no longer be legally liable for unlocking a phone and moving it
to another carrier, that doesn't mean that the carriers are required
to provide you with the information necessary to actually unlock it.
It just means that they can't sue you for a copyright violation.

putt@webtv.net wrote in news:4991-4566F356-209@storefull-
3278.bay.webtv.net:
> According to an article in USAToday, the U.S. Copyright Office as issued
> new rights to cellphone owners. Owners will be able to break software
> locks in order to use them with competing carriers. The Office
> determined that consumers aren't able to enjoy full legal use of their
> handsets because of software locks that wireless providers have been
> placing to control access to phones' underlying programs.
>
> I'm thinking this is a good thing, right?
>
> Dave S(Texas)
>
>

Scott wrote:
> Of course, the announcement does not require carriers to allow your newly
> uinlocked phone on their network. But you can unlock it.

That's the key to this announcement. It will no longer be a violation of
any law or regulation to unlock a phone (SPC lock on CDMA phones, SIM
lock on GSM phones). But there is no requirement that anyone then has to
activate said unlock phone. And the regulation specifically limits
itself to locks that prevent activation on another carrier. It does not
address any other kind of unlocking (such as "liberating" disabled
features on VZW phones).

>It will no longer be a violation of any law
> or regulation to unlock a phone (SPC
> lock on CDMA phones, SIM lock on
> GSM phones). But there is no
> requirement that anyone then has to
> activate said unlock phone. And the
> regulation specifically limits itself to
> locks that prevent activation on another
> carrier. It does not address any other
> kind of unlocking (such as "liberating"
> disabled features on VZW phones).

I don't know the difference between unlocking and hacking, but wouldn't
the prudent thing be, doing the job after the owned phone was activated?
Wouldn't that be a 'given'? Just wonderin'.....

So other than allowing us to unlock a Sprint or Alltel GPS/911 handset to
use on VZW (any other carrier use VZW-compatible sets?) this will benefit
most VZW users how?

For sure, we won't be able to use phones from Nextel, T-Mo, Cingular, all of
whom have "cooler" phones. We won't be able to use any SIM-based phones.

I suppose those adventurous souls who want to buy a phone from a Far
East-based CDMA system and bring it here may have some fun.....no local
support though....

Maybe this will be the end of subsidized handsets.

Gee, that would give people even MORE to ***** about here.

Dean

<putt@webtv.net> wrote in message
news:3586-45683AD2-1484@storefull-3275.bay.webtv.net...
> >It will no longer be a violation of any law
>> or regulation to unlock a phone (SPC
>> lock on CDMA phones, SIM lock on
>> GSM phones). But there is no
>> requirement that anyone then has to
>> activate said unlock phone. And the
>> regulation specifically limits itself to
>> locks that prevent activation on another
>> carrier. It does not address any other
>> kind of unlocking (such as "liberating"
>> disabled features on VZW phones).
>
> I don't know the difference between unlocking and hacking, but wouldn't
> the prudent thing be, doing the job after the owned phone was activated?
> Wouldn't that be a 'given'? Just wonderin'.....
>
> Dave S(Texas)
>

On Fri, 24 Nov 2006 07:27:50 -0600, putt@webtv.net wrote:
>According to an article in USAToday, the U.S. Copyright Office as issued
>new rights to cellphone owners....

The US Copyright Office is part of the Library of Congress. They don't control
anything except how copyrights are registered. They can't issue new "rights" to
anyone for anything without enabling legislation.

putt@webtv.net wrote in news:4991-4566F356-209@storefull-
3278.bay.webtv.net:
> According to an article in USAToday, the U.S. Copyright Office as issued
> new rights to cellphone owners. Owners will be able to break software
> locks in order to use them with competing carriers. The Office
> determined that consumers aren't able to enjoy full legal use of their
> handsets because of software locks that wireless providers have been
> placing to control access to phones' underlying programs.
>
> I'm thinking this is a good thing, right?
>
> Dave S(Texas)
>
>

Not quite true. The ruling speaks to the locking of a phone to a specific
carrier. It specifically mentions that unlocking 'crippled' features on
the phone is not a part of the ruling.

>Not quite true. The ruling speaks to the
> locking of a phone to a specific carrier.
> It specifically mentions that unlocking
> 'crippled' features on the phone is not a
> part of the ruling.

I did not write the article for USAToday. The article came out on the
day I made the post and I posted as it was written. Instead of
vilifying me and my attempt to help inform.....read the article, then
inform the Editor of the paper how much misinformation was contained in
that article? It was in the Tech section of the Nov 24th edition.

putt@webtv.net wrote in news:7014-456D8FC0-11@storefull-3273.bay.webtv.net:
>>Not quite true. The ruling speaks to the
>> locking of a phone to a specific carrier.
>> It specifically mentions that unlocking
>> 'crippled' features on the phone is not a
>> part of the ruling.
>
> I did not write the article for USAToday. The article came out on the
> day I made the post and I posted as it was written. Instead of
> vilifying me and my attempt to help inform.....read the article, then
> inform the Editor of the paper how much misinformation was contained in
> that article? It was in the Tech section of the Nov 24th edition.
>
> Dave S(Texas)
>
>

Villify? Please point out where I attempted anything other than correcting
the information contained in a post in a Usenet newsgroup. In fact, I
never directed a single comment towards you- that would be apparent by the
lack of the word "you" in the previous post. Please focus your feelings of
persecution on those that actually commit it.